The Liberty Party And Annexation

Two weeks since, we showed by undeniable testimony, that the Democratie party, as a whole, are avowedly laboring for the Annexation of Texas as soon as practicable. Last week we examined the position of the Whigs on this question, and found the party entirely opposed to Mr. Tyler's treaty, for good and substantial reasons But when the question is raised, Are the Whig party opposed to Annexation next year, or five or ten years hencej underall circumstanccs - wefound no grounds for answering the inquiry in the affirmative. Mr. Clayfs letter has nothing against future annexation; Mr. Frelinghuysen is entirely silent respecting it; the Whig National Convention took no grounds against it; and a considerable portion of the Southern Whigs are known to be for it, as soon as circumstancesshall be propitious.We propose to day to consider the position of the Liberty party on this question. They are opposed to Anne.xation, present or future, for three reasons - because it would unnecessarily and dangerously enlarge our national limits; because the Annexation of foreign territory in the manner here proposed, is unconstitutional; and because it would extend, strengthen, and perpetuate slavery. Each of these reasons, it will be seen, apply to anne.xation in future as wel! as at present. Let us consider them a little in detail. The lessons of history teach us that too greatan extensión of territory is injurious to national prosperity, and sometimes dangerous to national existence On the other hand, the national boundaries may be so narrow that the natural resources of wealth and power cannot be found within its limits in sufficient abundance to secure its highest perfection. Butthis cannoí be alledged of the terrítory of the United States, which embraces two millions of square miles, presenting every variety of ciimate, soil, and productions. It is capable of sustaininga population of 200 millions, without being any more densely settled than Massachusetts is at present. Our population is now but one tenth cf this number. We need not add the resources of Texas to our own. The Union ís large enough for every beneficial and while the acquisition of Texas would not add to our real strength, or the permanency of our institutions, it would be one large step in the indulgence of thatsprit of territoria] aggrandizement, which, whether gratified by negotiation or conquest, has been fatal to every republic where it has once attained unlimited sway.The second objecfion is that there is no warrant in the Constitution for incorporating foreign territory, or a forcign nation, into our confederacy. The Constitution is an instrument of limited powers, and a provisión for this purpose is no where made. This, we believe, was conceded by the Presidents under whose administrations Florida and Louisiana were admitted. The various methods tried at the present session of Congress to effect Annexation show that no rule was prescribed in the Constitution. It was attempted as a Treaty, to be effected by the President and two thirds of the Senate - by a Joint Resolution, to be approved by the President and a niajority of both Houses - and by a Bill, which should receive all the formalities of a law. No one can say but that one of these methods is as constifutional as the other: for thatstrument says nothing about any of them. if the Constitution is tobe regnrded at all, it should be regarded in all its provisions. The sovereign power lies in the people; and if a large majority of them are really in favor of Annexation, the requisite atnendment can be obtained from the several State Legislatures. How much better would this method be, than a wanton and unnecessary violation of our fundamental Jaw! Mr. Van Buren, and most, if not all, of the Jeading Democrats argue for the constitutionality of Annexation, while Mr. Clay seemsto take it for granted. Mr. Birney is the only one of the four Presidential candidates whogoes for a just and strict construction of the Constitution. All the Liberty papers coincide with the views of Mr. Birney, except the Daily Herald of Cincinnati. Lastly, we object to Annexation be! cause it is sought forthe express purpose of extending and strengthening slavery. That this was the design of Mr. Tyler and of his Cabinet in makiug the treatv, is expressly avowed by Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of State, in his eorrespondence with the British minister. For this purpose it is urianimously sopported by the Slaveholders of both parties. They need the territory of Texns that they may carve more siave States from it, and thus preserve the eqmlibrium of the Señale, andrecruit their dimimahing proportion of members ín the House. But chiefly do they wisb for Annexation, because Texas will aflbrd a boundless market for Slaves, and their value throughout the South will be immediately augmenfed from fifty to one hundred per cent. We are awarethat sorae of the Annexation ists of the North, and of the South, deny that the admission of Texas would tend to strengthen or perpetúate Slavery at all. They say that a certain numberof slaves now cxist in Texas and the United States, and that not a single one will be added by the union of the two countries. There will be no more slaves after Annexation than before. And as Slavery already exists in Texas, it will not be extended; and it is further denied that the influence of Slavery is strengthened by extensión over a large surface of country. The slightest reflection must convince any thinking person, that Slavery has been greatly strengthened by enlarging its boundaries. We have now thirteen Slave States in the Union with full delegations in Congress: originally there were butslx. They have nineteen members there merely because they areslaveholding States. Has Slavery gained nothing by extending its rule over these seven new Slave States, with their virgin soil, and vast natural resources of wealih? The tendency of Slavery is to exhaust and sterilize the soil. The slaveholder rarely, if ever, manures his lands. He finds it cheaper to remove, and settle on a new plantation. Henee thousands and thousands of acres of land in the old slave States, once cultivated, are now a barren waste. Had Slavery been confined to its original limits, the number of slaves woüld not have been more than half what it is at present, their representatives and advocates in Congress and elsewhere would have been but half as numercus, and the rich soil of the new Slave States ivould have given efficiency and vigor to free institutions. That every new slave State strengthens the power of Slavery. is believed by the slaveholders; and henee their anxiety that new ones should be added from Texas. The proper limits of Texas are supposèd to embrace an area of 240,000 square miles, which would make 32 States as large as Massachusetts. The whole number of -slaves on this vast domain is now estimated at only 25.000, being about one fifth of the whole population. The Annexntion of this immense territory as a slave country would jause a very great importation of slaves from Maryland, Virginia, and the other slave raising States, and the business of breeding slaves for sale would be carried on extensively and systenmtically.For these and other cogent reasons which we cannot enlarge upon now, the Liberty party are opposed to the admission of Texas, at present and prospectively. To make this opposition effect ual, they have been invited to support Mr. Clay and the Whig party at the ensuing election. It is represented that this is the only feasible course; that Mr. Birney cannot be elected now, and if we will support the Whig ticket it will be elected, and if the Whigs do nothing more for us, they will at least keep out Texas; and thus something will be gained for our cause; whereas, by voting for Mr. Birney, weshalLaccomplish nothing for ourselves, but it may be the occasion of the defeat of the Whigs, and of the consequent election of Polk, and the Annexation of Texas.This is the sum of the argument which is now addressing us from hundreds of presses, and we are disposed to give it all the weight it deserves. We must reject it for the following reasons: 1. Whatisasked of us is impracticable. The Liberty party cannot be induced by any means whatever to go unanimously for Clay. Were their organization dissolved to-day, not more than one fourth or one third of the voters would join the Whigs. A portion would go to the Democrats, and one half of the vvhole number would refuse to sustain either pro-slavery party. The real net gain to the W hig party would not exceed 20,000 votes. 2. The Whigs offer to keep out Texas if we will join them. But is it certain that Mr. Clay will be elected? It might be well for Liberty men to ask lhemselves this question before they deposite their votes for an unsuccessful candidate. It is possible that votes may be "hrown away" upon Mr. Clay, as well as upon Mr. Birnevl3. The Whigs offer to keep out Texas i f we will join them. But supposing they should suceecd, which is by no means certain, what evidence have we that Texas will be kept out? The party is not committed in the least against future Annexation under favorable circumstances. The National Whig Convention have not declared against it; neither have Messrs. Clay and Frelinghuysen; while a considerable ponion of the Southern Whigs are for it. Besides, if Texas shall be kept out during the next ibur years, it will be because the President and a majority of the Senate, or of both Houses shall be against it. Supposing the Whigs to elect their President, and have a majority of both Houses, is it certain that Annexation vill not take place? (tThere will then be large Democratie minorities in both Houses; the Democrats, both North and South, are fully committed to the scheme as a party measure,' andlhe votes ofonly a veryfew Southern Whigs will be needed io pass the requisite hïtl or joint resolution.LQ These vrill be had without difficurlty; for the slaveholders will be united as one man where their interests are sodeeply at stake. The only barrier to Annexation will then ba the veto of Mr.Clay. Has he ever said that he woulc veto such a bilí? Has he ever intimaíet that he would? He never has! On the contrary, he has expressly declared tha "if the question of Annexation were pre sented with the general concurrence o the nation," it would appear in quite a different light frora that in which it ha been viewed, as proposed by Mr. Tyler' trenty. We have, then, not the least se curity that i f we should join the Whigs and help elect Mr. Clay, that Texas would be excluded. "The laborer is worthy of hishire;" and if the Whigsare disposed to hire us for a valuable consid eration to labor for Mr. Clay's elevation we want some reasonable prospect o obtainingour pay, before wecan sell our time and energies to them for four years to come. 4. But admitting that the Whigs are a genuine Anti-Annexation party, an: that they are fully committed against the measure - which is far from being the - should we be wise in uniting witl thém for this object? To comply with their solicitations would be to abandon our one great object - the Abolition op Slavery, for the purpose of electing a Slavemolding President, who is pledgec against EVER Y SCHEME of Emaricipation whether gradual or immediate! - Should we not pause before we consent to pay such a price for the exclusión ol Texas? Are we prepared to surrender our glorious designs of blessingour country by Universal Ernancipation? Is it best to forsake them now that our influence begins to be feit? Were the Liberty party organized merely as an AntiTexas party, a compliance with this proposition of the Whigs to us would be more reasonable. But such is not the case. - We are emphatically an Anti Slavery party; and we shall not be enliced from the pursuit of our purpose by any compromising offers of slaveholders or their allies. We shall continue our opposition to Slaveky and to Texas in ourown way, and according to our ability, leaving the other Pro-slavery parties to pursue their own chosen course, which, unless counteracfed by the rising influence of the Liberty party, we believe will result in the full success of the neíariousschemes of the slaveholders. The Whig and Democratie parties are but fhe embodiments of the Slave Powerj the1 démoniac spirit within uses each alternately or together as may best subserve its diabolical designs; and the only course for Liberty men is to reject their proffered alliance, despise their all uring speeches, have no fellowship in their works, and labor for their speedy and eternal overthrow.